Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82013 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15805 of 2025 Applicant :- Satendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vishal Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Abhishek Singh,G.A.,Rajveer Chaurasiya Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Vishal Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhishek Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 02 of 2023, U/S 376, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, Mahoba, District Mahoba, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted by the informant stating that the marriage of his daughter was agreed to be solemnized with the applicant. At the time of engagement she had given a heavy amount of dowry. The other co-accused persons, namely, father of the applicant Raj Bahadur, his mother Smt. Katto and his brother Shailendra demanded large amount of dowry from her. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. It is stated that he has nothing to do with the said offence. FIR is delayed, as it was instituted on 12.4.2023 and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has further argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has come up subsequently, after a delay of about 2 months and 9 days from the date of institution of the instant FIR. An application was moved by the victim herein that she was subjected to sexual assault by the applicant on the pretext of marrying her but subsequently, he had refused to comply with the said betrothal. The said application dated 21.6.2023 has been filed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application. Learned counsel has stated that the said application is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C., as it has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. The said application has been moved as an after- thought. 7. It is further argued that the victim is major, as she is about 31 years old. There are ample contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is a clear-cut case of misuse of dowry and rape laws, as the father of the applicant had committed suicide under duress as the family members of the victim had demanded heavy amount of Rs. 15 lakhs from him for getting the matter settled. It is true that the applicant had married but he was not married at the time of the incident. He had married on 3.12.2023 i.e. after 8 months of the date of institution of the FIR, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. 8. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.3.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant has not come with clean hands, as he had earlier on filed an anticipatory bail application before this Court and had told the Court that he is unmarried while he was already married before the said anticipatory bail application and he enjoyed the interim protection on the ground of the matter being sent for mediation, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the delay in institution of FIR and applicant being not named in the FIR and his name has come up after a delay of about 2 months and 9 days of the FIR, there being no medical corroboration of the incident and the marriage of the applicant having been solemnized after a delay of about 8 months to the institution of the instant FIR, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant- Satendra Kumar, involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. 13. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 17.5.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad